Nonverbal
Thanks for the invite. Would you agree, though, that at times a microscopic view is important and helpful? When is it helpful and when does it tend rather to harm? Can you specify? I can only do this rarely.

If you think I miss being a believer, please rethink. Religious faith amounts to a problem for me rather than a solution or anything resembling comfort.

.
.
.
Good point, microscopic view is very important and help us to keep focus in things we have next to us.
.
.
.
Nonverbal you are free to select comfort over the truth.
.
.
.

The only reliable microscope can be found in a scientific laboratory used in conjunction with the scientific method. A hypothetical or symbolic microscope has proven to be useless. Real ones actually work!

This is what the evolution’s goal is like. A man scatters seed on the ground. Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how. All by itself the soil produces grain—first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head. As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because the harvest has come.
.
.
.

What shall we say the evolution’s goal is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth. Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds can perch in its shade.
.
.
The evolution’s goal is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

.
.
Again, the evolution’s goal is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.
.
.
Once again, the evolution’s goal is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. .
.Have you understood all these things?

> Does God exist? Are there faeries? We cannot have certainty in the matter, so we will evaluate postulating such entities as a good or bad explanation.
>
> There are two important varieties of claims. One postulates an entity that does something. Santa is actually supposed to deliver presents, and to visit every house. These claims are uncommon because they can be falsified by observation (like watching bad parents fake Santa’s visit). Some of these claims, like the tooth fairy, fail because they are refuted by observation. But some do not. One might see a burning Bush, and say that it is God’s work. Upon observation, the bush behaves just as the believer has said it will. The problem here, is that the “God” being observed hasn’t got any properties other than those observed ... He acts just like a bit of fire on a bush. Or, the believer might say He’s up in heaven, but the bush acts as if He were simply a bit of fire, and this brings us to the second variety of claim.
>
> The second variety of claim involves attributing something to an entity that functions exactly as if the entity did not exist. This approach fails because it adds a complication (the entity) to our explanatory framework, without explaining this complication. For example, we might wonder where the universe came from. And we might want something better than is offered by modern physics. So, we might postulate that God made the world, because this seems to answer the question. However, all it does is deflect the question. Now we wonder where God came from. And if God is a complex enough entity to create the entire universe, then this question is even worse than the previous one (that we had before we postulated God), because we now have even more complexity to explain than before. It also violates the Unexplained Complication rule—why should there be a God rather than not? This is unexplained.
>
> One strategy that can be useful is to ask someone postulating such an entity, “How can I differentiate you from someone who made up an entity?” All the believer can really do is tell you to have faith, which is not a valid reason to think something true.

one sentence? how about a bumpersticker slogan? here’s mine: Bertrand Russell Deduced It, I Believe It, That Settles It.

yes, I’m kidding of course. but it does remind me of a conversation I had years ago with a close friend who’s now dead. I had picked up a paperback of Why I am Not a Christian and after reading it I was discussing it with him. he knew I’d been subjected to an extremely religious upbringing, but we’d never really talked about “god” much. I said that Russell’s essay had really helped sort out a lot of doubts and unanswered questions I’d had since I was a kid, leaving me to conclude that I don’t really buy the whole “god” business at all. he looked at me kinda funny and said “Well, you’re an atheist, obviously. I’ve always known that about you.” I replied “Oh, really? I guess I’d never really thought about it that way. I’m an atheist… a very thirsty atheist! another round please.”